Associated Sales Co. v. Elmer E. Frost & Co.

TAPPAAN, J., pro tem.

is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor. The cause of action as joined involved an accounting between the parties, and the trial court referred the matter to a referee, to he “heard, tried and determined”. Pursuant to this order, hearings were had and the referee made and filed her report and findings with the court. Thereafter, and on the date fixed for the hearing of said referee’s report, appellants presented to the court exceptions to said report, and after a hearing thereon, the court refused to modify the referee’s report and ordered judgment in accordance therewith. Appellants state their position on this appeal in the following language: “The defendants appeal from said judgment, and ask for a review by this Court of the trial Court’s action in refusing to modify the Referee’s report.” Although the record presented here is somewhat meager, there can be no doubt, after an examination of the order of reference, and the report and

[236]

findings of the referee, that the order of reference was general in its nature, and under the provisions of section 644 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “The finding of the referee or commissioner upon the whole issue must stand as the finding of the court, and upon the filing of the finding with the clerk of the court, judgment may be entered thereon in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the court.”

{Lewis

v.

Grunberg,

205 Cal. 158, 162 [270 Pac. 181, 182].) The finding made by the referee in so far as it is material here, was a finding of fact. From an examination of appellants’ specifications of error it appears that their objection was that the finding was unsupported by the evidence. From an examination of the evidence as presented in the bills of exceptions, there is found evidence supporting all of the questioned matters. “The evidence is certainly not very satisfactory, for it is conflicting, confused, and uncertain, but we cannot say that it is insufficient to support the finding.”

{Jackson

v.

Puget

Sound,